|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 925 Records
-
2013 (6) TMI 913 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... when the status of the assessee was held as AOP for the reasons discussed in the assessment order. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the AO assessed the assessee as an AOP in place of a trust because the ld. CIT,C-III, Kolkata had cancelled the registration of the trust vide order dated 31.12.2008 passed under section 12AA(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the Tribunal vide its order dated 20.03.2009 in ITA No.96/Kol/2009 quashed the order of the CIT, Central-III, Kolkata canceling the registration under section 12AA(3) of the Act. Thus, the registration cancelled by the ld. CIT was restored in appeal by the Tribunal. Therefore, the status, in which the trust was to be assessed, has to be as a trust and not as an AOP. Hence, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue and direct the AO to assess the assessee trust in the status of a trust and not as an AOP. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. This Order is pronounced in the Court on 21st June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 912 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... led for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, which go to show that the issue demanded a detailed enquiry into the facts of the case. Such detailed enquiry into the facts of the case cannot tantamount to a mistake apparent from record. 3.20. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has exceeded his jurisdiction in adjudicating the matter on merits by overlooking his jurisdiction in law. 3.21. Therefore, we find that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) passed in the case of section 154 appeal is not sustainable in law. We uphold the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 154 and set aside the related appellate order of the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals). 4. In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of the assessment order under section 143(3) is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue with reference to section 154 order is allowed. Orders pronounced on Tuesday, the 11th of June, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (6) TMI 911 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... f an ‘AOP’ deserves to be appropriately considered in accordance with law. For the aforesaid purpose, we therefore, deem it fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall consider the aforesaid plea of the assessee on its merits as per law, uninfluenced by the fact that the assessee had stated its status as a ‘firm’ in the return of income. In the ensuing remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to put-forth material or evidence in support of its stand and thereafter, the Assessing Officer shall pass an order afresh determining the correct status of the assessee as per law. 15. Accordingly, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. 16. Resultantly, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is allowed that of the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is also allowed as above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 910 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... any documentary proof. In view of the above, I hold the amount of ₹ 50,000/- in the name of Shri Yatin Kamdar as unexplained. Accordingly, a sum of ₹ 50,000/- is treated as the assessee’s income of the year u/s.68 of the IT Act, 1961.” 4. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) has passed the following order - “6. After a comparative study of assessment order and above written submissions, I am inclined to agree with the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer because the assessment order is hunky-dory in all respect.” 5. We have heard both the parties. The order passed by the CIT (A) is a cryptic and non-speaking order. His order is therefore set aside and the matter is restored to his file for passing a fresh order in conformity with law. He is requested to dispose of all the grounds of appeal taken before him by a speaking order. Appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21.06.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 909 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he TDS certificates received by it subsequently although the corresponding income was already offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income filed during the year under consideration. 19. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material placed on record. Keeping in view the ratio of the various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee in its application for admission of the additional ground and having regard to the fact that the ld. D.R. has also not raised any objection to the admission of the said additional ground, we admit the additional ground filed by the assessee and direct the A.O. to consider and allow the claim of the assessee for TDS amounting to ₹ 44,96,139/- after necessary verification in accordance with law. The additional ground of the assessee is accordingly treated as allowed. 20. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12-6-2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 908 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... such enhanced income due to statutory disallowance. We find that similar view has also been taken by the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Progressive Software Development (P) Ltd., Hyderabad (ITA No.397/Hyd/2010 dated 30-9-2010 and in case of DCIT vs. Virinchi Technologies L imited (ITA No.209/Hyd/2010 dated 31-3-2011. Respectfully following the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery (I) Ltd (supra), we hold that the statutory disallowance cannot be excluded from the income of the undertaking for computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction u/s 10A of the Act without excluding the statutory disallowance from the income derived from the undertaking. Therefore, we allow the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 7-06-2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 907 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... y of hire charges or wages, etc., to which the payee was entitled to, cannot be brought under the mischief of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagindas M Kapadia, 177 ITR 393, has held that running account maintained by the parties against regular business transactions cannot be treated as an item coming under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This is because all such payments do not fall within the meaning of loan. In the present case, as it is a regular and business running account, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is justified in holding that the assessing authority is not justified in invoking section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 is liable to be dismissed. 14. In result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2007-08 are dismissed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 19th of June, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (6) TMI 906 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... 2010 vide cheque no.163485. The assessee has also justified the reason for repayment of share application money and it was stated to be due to failure of the company to take over the project for which share application money was received. The assessee has also filed certificate of foreign inward remittance (SFIR) through which Smt. Anjali Baizal has remitted amount in foreign currency in her NRE account with ICICI bank, MP Nagar, Bhopal. 7. In view of the above, we find that the assessee has discharged its onus of proving identity of loan creditor, genuineness of loan transaction as well as credit worthiness of the loan creditors. The detailed findings recorded by CIT(A) have not been controverted by the revenue by bringing any positive material on record. We accordingly do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 18.6.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 905 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... y the inspection team. Order 20. In view of the above, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and exercising the powers conferred upon me U/S 15‐I(2) of the SEBI Act, 1992, I hereby impose a penalty of ₹ 50, 000/‐(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) under section 15HB of SEBI Act on the Noticee. In my view, the penalty is commensurate with the default committed by the Noticee. 21. The above penalty amount shall be paid through a duly crossed demand draft drawn in favour of “SEBI‐Penalties Remittable to Government of India” and payable at Mumbai, within 45 days of receipt of this order. The said demand draft should be forwarded to Regional Manager, Securities & Exchange Board of India Southern Regional Office, Overseas Tower, 7th Floor, 756‐L, Annasalai, Chennai 600002. 22. In terms of the Rule 6 of the Adjudicating Rules, copy of this order is sent to the Noticee and also to Securities & Exchange Board of India.
-
2013 (6) TMI 904 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was in charge of and was responsible to the company for conduct of its affairs. 9. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner is neither the Managing Director nor the authorized signatory to sign on the cheques, which were dishonoured. In the absence of any allegation attributing specific role to the petitioner in discharge of the day-to-day affairs of the company, and in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred decisions and as the statutory requirements of Section 141 of the Act have not been satisfied with in so far as the petitioner is concerned, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in C.C. No. 570 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise), Guntur, are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 903 - ITAT CHENNAI
Eligibility to claim depreciation as an application of income for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 11 - Held that:- In assessee's own case, for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, this Tribunal, had held that an assessee could claim depreciation as application of income of funds while computing its eligible exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The same view has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Sri Ranganathar Trust [2013 (1) TMI 1025 - ITAT CHENNAI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (6) TMI 902 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the word “individuals” as mentioned in the notification reproduced above, as per the ratio of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Mammad Keyi Vs. Wealth Tax Officer (supra). The word “commercial vehicle” has been defined in the notification dated 19.1.2009 (supra) to mean vehicle used for business or profession like lawyer, doctor, etc. do but not salaried employees. The assessee has claimed that it has used the vehicle for its business purpose only, and this claim of the assessee has not been controverted by the Revenue. Other conditions of the allowability of higher rate of depreciation, as per the provisions of the law, have been fulfilled by the assessee, and the Revenue has not doubted the same. In these facts of the case, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee and the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (6) TMI 901 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... eculation business. The assessee, in the present case, admittedly is having a loss in the speculative transaction being the transactions in the derivatives and in the day trading of the shares and in view of the provisions of Explanation to sec. 73, the assessee’s transactions of purchase and sale of shares would be liable to be held to be a deemed speculation business. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to the setting off of the loss on account of assessee’s transactions in respect of the derivatives and the day trading of shares against its profits and gains from the purchase and sale of shares. In view of the above, the AO is directed to grant the assessee the benefit of set off of the speculative loss against the profits and gains of the deemed speculation business of purchase and sale of shares in the regular course. 11. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. 12. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.06.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 900 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... instant case, the complaint case records reveal that the complaint Was never posted for enquiry. Therefore, there has been an infraction of the mandatory provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 202, Cr.P.C. and, therefore, such infraction vitiates the order taking cognizance and directing issuance of process. 10. The petitioners have filed a memo indicating therein that earlier they had filed an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in CRLMC No. 1977 of 2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2009. On going through the judgment passed in the said CRLMC it is found that the grounds and points urged in the present writ petition had not been urged therein. Therefore, the dismissal of the earlier CRLMC filed by the petitioners cannot operate as a bar for filing of the present writ petition. In the light of the discussions made above, the W.P.(Crl.) is allowed and the proceeding in I.C.C. No. 847 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar is quashed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 899 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nder process, we are unable to find any arbitrariness, malice in fact or in law or any mistake or defect in the process of the bidding accorded to the petitioner nor we find any violation of principle of natural justice as the petitioner was well informed on the given E-Mail ID to respond to the clarification by 1 st March, 2013 and for which reasonable notice was given as the E-Mail was sent to the petitioner on 21 st February, 2013 in this respect. It was however upon the petitioner not to take the process of the bidding lightly by not checking its E-Mail ID properly and thoroughly in its folders which became the reason of the delay. Under these circumstances, we also find that the decision making process accorded to the petitioner is reasonable one and cannot be said be suffering from vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 23. In the result, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. All pending CMs are disposed of.
-
2013 (6) TMI 898 - ITAT INDOR
... ...
... ... ..... n because the documents issued by the revenue department clearly indicate that agricultural operation was done by the assessee and in the revenue record it has been shown as agricultural land. The Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment, was expected to peruse the record and decide in accordance with law. For example, if a wrong claim is made by the assessee, the learned Assessing Officer is duty bound not to allow the same rather he is expected to decide correctly as per the provisions of the Act. For agricultural purposes, the documents/certificate issued by the land revenue authorities are of prime importance and cannot be brushed aside. In our view, so far as agricultural land/produce is concerned, any document issued by Halka Patwari/revenue Patwari/Tehsildar is authentic. This ground of the assessee is, accordingly, allowed. Finally, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. This order was pronounced in the open Court on 28.6.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 897 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... th regard to deduction u/s.80IB(10). But claim or no claim of 30 flats raised at the strength of additional FSI will not disturb the entitlement of 126 flats raised on buildings ‘A’ (40 flats), ‘B’ (40 flats) , ‘C’ (6 flats) and ‘D’ (40 flats), which were completed in all respects on 15.12.2008, i.e., before 31.03.2009. The beneficial provisions of section 80IB(10) should not be diluted by narrow untenable interpretation by the Revenue authorities. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is entitled for claiming deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of 126 flats completed before 31- 3-2009 as discussed above. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. Similar issue arose in A.Y. 2008-09. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) is directed to be allowed. 11. As a result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 896 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... e Government, therefore, the actual payment has been made by the patients, who are individuals and have made payment towards their personal purposes. Since it being the personal expenses of such poor patients, as per second proviso to s. 194J, the patients who are individuals are not required to deduct any tax at source. Under these circumstances, the AO was not justified in invoking of provisions of ss. 201 and 201(1A) in respect of payment made under s. 194J. 7. Our view is also supported with the view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Dy. CIT vs. Movies Stunt (supra), wherein it was held that payment made to artist through the assessee, who is association of stunt artists is not liable to deduct tax under s. 194J. No contrary judgment was brought to our notice by the Department. We, are, therefore, inclined to follow the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench as stated above and allow the appeals of the assessee. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 895 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... cipients of such income have already incorporated the amount received form assessee on account of job work charges of ₹ 1,04,80,591/- paid to M/s. Kartik Solvex Pvt.Ltd. and also clearing, forwarding and transportation charges of ₹ 11,22,460/- paid to M/s. Swastik Enterprises. The Assessing Officer should also verify correctness of assessee’s claim that it has not been treated as assessee in default u/s 201(1), in addition to verifying the certificate furnished by the Chartered Accountant of these concerns. The assessee has an opportunity to substantiate its claim by filing any other documents as per law. The Assessing Officer is to decide afresh in terms of our above observation. 11. Since the matter is set-aside, the cross objection has become infructuous. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection is dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 21st June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 894 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... action of those shares was to be entered into on or after the date on which Chapter VII of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 came into force i.e 01-10-2004 and the transaction was chargeable to Securities Transaction Tax under this Chapter. In the present case, shares were acquired by the assessee on 17-06-2005 through Stock Exchange and put into DEMAT account. When those shares were sold, the assessee incurred the expenses of ₹ 1891/- on account of Securities Transaction Tax and those share were held for more than one year. Therefore, the profit earned on the sale of the shares was Long Term Capital Gain which was exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. We therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case as discussed hereinabove are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the Department. 3.0 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
........
|
